Ramesh Kumar S/O Mohan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:45871)

Ramesh Kumar S/o Mohan Lal, aged about 60 years, R/o 1924/43, Naiwala Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through PP ----State Respondent 2. ABC [Identity withheld] ----Respondent-Complainant Connected with (2) S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4730/2016

Ramesh Kumar S/o Mohan Lal, aged about 55 years, R/o 1924/43, Naiwala Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.

2. The Superintendent of Police, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

3. The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Alwar, District Alwar, Rajathan.

4. The S.H.O. Police Station Bhiwadi, District Alwar.

----Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Surana Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Muskan Verma Advocate, Mr. Umang Jain Advocate, Mr. Anuj Rohilla Advocate, Mr. Rishabh Raj Advocate, Ms. Palak Sinha Advocate (Petition No. 3510/2021) Mr. Shiv Lal Meena (Petition No. 4730/2016).

For Respondent- : Mr. Vivek Sharma Public Prosecutor.

State For Respondent- : Mr. Rinesh Gupta Advocate with Mr. Complainant Gaurav Sharma Advocate.

(Uploaded on 15/11/2025 at 02:04:32 PM) (Downloaded on 17/11/2025 at 09:07:17 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45871] (2 of 10) [CRLMP-3510/2021]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

REPORTABLE 11/11/2025

1. Since both criminal misc. petitions arise out of common

FIR No. FIR No. 148/2014 dated 21.02.2014 registered at Police

Station Bhiwadi District Alwar for offence punishable under Section

354 IPC and the proceedings arisiong out of the said FIR,

therefore, they were heard analoguously and are being decided by

this common judgment.

2. The petitioner has preferred S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition

No. 3510/2021 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Cr.P.C.) seeking

quashing of the criminal proceedings of Criminal Regular Case No.

1039/2014 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and Judicial

Magistrate, Bhiwadi, Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial

court'), which arose out of FIR No. 148/2014 dated 21.02.2014

registered at Police Station Bhiwadi District Alwar for offence

punishable under Section 354 IPC, including order dated

04.06.2016 passed by the trial court, whereby charge was framed

against the petitioner for the offence under Section 354 IPC, as

well as to set aside order dated 08.04.2021 passed by the Court

of Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Tijara, District

Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the revisional court'),

whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order

of framing charge was dismissed.

3. S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4730/2016 was filed by

the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. way back in the year

(Uploaded on 15/11/2025 at 02:04:32 PM) (Downloaded on 17/11/2025 at 09:07:17 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45871] (3 of 10) [CRLMP-3510/2021]

2016 with a prayer to quash FIR No. 148/2014 dated 21.02.2014

registered at Police Station Bhiwadi District Alwar for offence

punishable under Section 354 IPC.

4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present

petitions are that the petitioner was holding the post of Deputy

Medical Superintendent at ESIC Hospital, Bhiwadi, Alwar. It is

submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the dispute arose from

professional disagreements between the petitioner and his

subordinate female officer (complainant), which was rooted in

refusal by the complainant to conduct sputum tests under the

National Tuberculosis Control Programme at the hospital. When

she was questioned about her negligence and insubordination, in

order to counter the allegations against her, the complainant sent

emails on 22.05.2013 and 23.05.2013 against the petitioner to

the higher authorities referring incident of harassment on

21.05.2013, however, there was no whisper whatsoever in the

emails regarding any allegation relating to any physical contact,

inappropriate touching or use of criminal force. Complaint made

by her was referred to an Internal Complaints Committee

(hereinafter to be referred as "ICC") constituted under the Sexual

Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and

Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the POSH Act,

2013'), which was duly constituted in accordance with the

provisions of the POSH Act. Aforesaid ICC meticulously enquired

the matter and recorded statements of the complainant and all the

relevant witnesses; and submitted a report dated 25.01.2014

exonerating the petitioner of any charge of sexual harassment,

whatsoever, finding that the allegations levelled by the

(Uploaded on 15/11/2025 at 02:04:32 PM) (Downloaded on 17/11/2025 at 09:07:17 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45871] (4 of 10) [CRLMP-3510/2021]

complainant were baseless and unfounded. The ICC also noted the

complainant's defiant conduct during the inquiry and concluded

that her allegations lacked credibility.

5. It is submitted that after such report of ICC giving

clean chit to the petitioner, quite maliciously, after expiry of 9

months from the date of alleged incident, on 21.02.2014, FIR for

committing offence under section 354 IPC was lodged by the

complainant levelling totally false allegations of making

inappropriate physical contact by force against the petitioner,

which were apparently contradictory to the initial complaint made

by the complainant in the department and her statements given

before the ICC.

6. It is further stated that ignoring all the relevant

material including report dated 25.01.2014 submitted by the ICC,

the police authorities filed challan against the petitioner and the

trial court, in quite mechanical manner, took cognizance of offence

punishable under Section 354 IPC against the petitioner and

without examining the material on record, vide order dated

04.06.2016 charge for committing offence under Section 354 IPC

was framed by the trial court. Order of framing charge was

challenged by the petitioner before the revisional court, however,

overlooking the grave jurisdictional error and material illegality

committed by the trial court, the revisional court has rejected the

revision petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated

08.04.2021 and upon rejection of the revision petition, Criminal

Misc. Petition No. 3510/2021 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed

seeking quashing of the FIR, charge sheet, order of framing

charge and all subsequent criminal proceedings.

(Uploaded on 15/11/2025 at 02:04:32 PM) (Downloaded on 17/11/2025 at 09:07:17 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45871] (5 of 10) [CRLMP-3510/2021]

7. Mr. Rajeev Surana, learned Senior Counsel as also Mr.

Shiv Lal Meena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that the POSH Act, 2013 is a special enactment for

dealing with sexual harassment at the work place and Section 27

of the Act provides for taking cognizance of any offence relating to

sexual harassment only on complaint either by the aggrieved lady

or by the member of the Committee. In view of the special

procedure for prosecution given under the POSH Act, 2013, FIR

under section 354 IPC could not have been registered by the

police authorities in respect of the allegations specifically referring

the offence relating to sexual offence at the work place.

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner

further argued that even otherwise, the FIR and charge sheet

were based on a false and unsubstantiated story motivated by

malice and personal vendetta of the complainant, ignoring the

exoneration of the petitioner by the Statutory Committee under

the POSH Act, 2013. It was contended that the delay of nine

months in lodging the FIR seriously undermined its credibility of

the allegations against the petitioner, yet the same was ignored.

The investigation was flawed as it did not consider the ICC report,

and some witnesses' statements were apparently missing.

Moreover, the complainant's initial complaints did not allege

physical touching, indicating that the FIR was an afterthought to

harass the petitioner.

9. Reliance has been placed by learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioner on the Hon'ble Apex Court's decisions

in the cases of Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration &

Another, (1996) 9 SCC 766 and Harshendra Kumar D. vs.

(Uploaded on 15/11/2025 at 02:04:32 PM) (Downloaded on 17/11/2025 at 09:07:17 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45871] (6 of 10) [CRLMP-3510/2021]

Rebatilata Koley & Others, (2011) 3 SCC 351 emphasising

that the High Court can quash proceedings even after framing of

charge, if no prima facie case is made out or if proceedings are

manifestly mala fide or without any basis. Learned Senior Counsel

has also submitted that the facts of the instant case qualify all the

tests prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh &

Another, 2025 Supreme (SC) 1667, for the purpose of

quashing of the criminal proceedings in a petition under Section

482 Cr.P.C.

10. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the

complainant opposed the petitions and submitted that since

charges have already been framed and the case was at the stage

of prosecution evidence, instant petitions under Section 482

Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. They argued that the forum to

challenge the order of framing of charges was either by way of

revision or discharge application and the inherent jurisdiction

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be invoked at this stage to

quash the proceedings. They urged that the petitioner should have

defended the charges in the trial and this Court should not pre-

empt the trial process. It was contended that the investigation

was proper and that the ICC report did not have the sanctity of

judicial findings and hence, cannot not be relied upon to quash

criminal proceedings. It was also argued that the woman's rights

to seek both civil redressal through the Internal Complaints

Committee or Local Committee (as per the POSH Act, 2013) and

criminal justice through police complaint and prosecution, are

based upon distinct objectives of the statutory framework, i.e.

(Uploaded on 15/11/2025 at 02:04:32 PM) (Downloaded on 17/11/2025 at 09:07:17 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45871] (7 of 10) [CRLMP-3510/2021]

providing an accessible workplace remedy and ensuring criminal

accountability, which can operate concurrently without prejudice

to each other. Even otherwise, report of ICC has been challenged

by the complainant before the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Jaipur.

11. Perused the record of the case and carefully heard the

rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

12. Firstly, the argument raised by learned Senior Counsel

for the petitioner, that criminal prosecution for sexual harassment

on workplace can be launched only through complaint under

Section 27 of the POSH Act, 2013 and not through FIR, is being

examined by this court.

13. The complaint mechanism under Section 27 of the

POSH Act, 2013, while providing a specialised forum for

addressing grievances related to workplace sexual harassment, is

not the sole legal recourse available to an aggrieved woman.

Section 28 of the Act explicitly clarifies that the provisions of the

POSH Act, 2013 are in addition to, and not in derogation of, any

other law for the time being in force concerning sexual

harassment. This legislative intent ensures that an aggrieved

woman retains the right to pursue criminal proceedings

independently, including lodging a First Information Report (FIR)

for offences such as those under Section 354 IPC, which penalises

assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her

modesty. Hence, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner

in this regard is totally untenable and is hereby rejected.

14. However, on the question of challenge to the criminal

proceedings on other grounds raised by the petitioner, upon

(Uploaded on 15/11/2025 at 02:04:32 PM) (Downloaded on 17/11/2025 at 09:07:17 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45871] (8 of 10) [CRLMP-3510/2021]

consideration of the facts and materials on record, this Court finds

that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of nearly nine

months from the alleged incident and admittedly, the petitioner

has been exonerated by a statutory committee, i.e., Internal

Complaints Committee. ICC's inquiry was statutory in nature

under the POSH Act, 2013 and could not have been ignored for

the purpose of assessing the correctness of the allegations levelled

by the complainant. It's report gave clean chit to the petitioner

categorically and found the complainant's allegations were

baseless and motivated by malice. However, on registration of

FIR, the investigating officer failed to incorporate or consider this

vital report, while submitting the charge sheet, which gives

indication of an incomplete and biased investigation in the matter.

This also casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings.

15. Furthermore, upon comparison of initial departmental

complaint and the contents of FIR, this court finds total absence of

any previous complaint of physical misconduct before the ICC and

the complainant's initial complaints apparently lacked allegations

of physical touching or harassment, which only surfaced in the FIR

as an afterthought concocted by the complainant after the adverse

ICC report.

16. Regarding the maintainability of a quashing petition at

this stage, the court relies on the recent authoritative judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh vs State of

Uttar Pradesh & Others, Criminal Appeal arising out of

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12354/2024 decided on

29.11.2024, wherein the Supreme Court held that a petition

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings is

(Uploaded on 15/11/2025 at 02:04:32 PM) (Downloaded on 17/11/2025 at 09:07:17 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45871] (9 of 10) [CRLMP-3510/2021]

maintainable even after the filing of the charge sheet and framing

of charges. The Hon'ble Apex Court distinguished quashing

petitions from discharge applications, noting the broader scope of

challenge available in quashing petitions, including reliance on

additional documents beyond the charge sheet and grounds such

as abuse of process of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

emphasised that the existence of framed charges does not oust

the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent

abuse of legal process or miscarriage of justice. Strict technical

objections to entertainability of quashing petitions after framing of

charge was rejected as contrary to the purpose and spirit of

Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court, therefore, affirms the

maintainability of the present petitions despite the trial

proceedings being at the stage of prosecution evidence.

17. Upon applying the aforesaid principles to the present

facts, this Court finds that the allegations levelled against the

petitioner do not disclose any offence attracting Section 354 IPC

or any other criminal provision. The FIR and charge sheet, in the

facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinabove, clearly

reflects mala fide prosecution, abuse of process of law and are

founded on distorted facts. The continuation of proceedings would

subject the accused to unwarranted harassment, tarnishing his

reputation without any credible basis. It would be a travesty of

justice to compel the petitioner to undergo trial when the

foundational allegations are unsubstantiated on the face of record

and material beyond suspicion. This conclusion is also fortified by

the ICC report, investigative irregularities and the long delay in

lodging FIR.

(Uploaded on 15/11/2025 at 02:04:32 PM) (Downloaded on 17/11/2025 at 09:07:17 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:45871] (10 of 10) [CRLMP-3510/2021]

18. Therefore, in exercise of the inherent powers conferred

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of law and

to secure the ends of justice, this Court orders that FIR No.

148/2014 registered at Police Station Bhiwadi, District Alwar along

with charge sheet dated 29.04.2014 and all related criminal

proceedings pending in Criminal Regular Case No. 1039/2014 are

hereby quashed. The impugned orders passed by lower courts for

framing charges and rejecting revision petitions are set aside.

Accordingly, the accused-petitioner stands discharged of all the

charges levelled against him in the aforesaid proceedings.

19. Both the petitions stand allowed accordingly.

20. Interim applications, if any, stand disposed of.

21. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on

record of connected petition.

(ANAND SHARMA),J

MANOJ NARWANI /

(Uploaded on 15/11/2025 at 02:04:32 PM) (Downloaded on 17/11/2025 at 09:07:17 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)